Tanker deal loss staggers Boeing

Tanker deal loss staggers Boeing

There are 134 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Mar 1, 2008, titled Tanker deal loss staggers Boeing. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

In a shocking move, the U.S. Air Force awarded a $35 billion contract to replace its aging fleet of aerial tankers to a consortium led by a France-based defense contractor rather than Boeing Co.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#123 Mar 8, 2008
David Perry wrote:
The 767 and 330 are completely different airframes with the 330 being larger. If it is size the Air Force wants, the 777 airframe would have provided the services with even more capability.
You can bet that the Air Force specifically asked for the 767 airframe. Had they asked for more fuel/payload capability than the 767 can provide Boeing would have bid the job with the 777.
In these competitions it is generally understood that no extra credit be given for capability beyond that which is specified in the requirements document. In this case it appears that "extra credit" was awarded.
Come on people. How can an airframe built in Europe with very high labor rates be competitive with one built in the US? Government subsidies thats how.
So now we have France, Germany, and the UK subsidizing the US military. The price America pays for the favor is paid in the currency of the middle class worker.
One final note. I'll bet a nickel that cost overruns will total at least 25% of the project. That's how Northrop operates - they were prime on the B-2 - remember how that one turned out?
Oh yeah. Like Boeing never had an over-run? Let's talk about the ABL for a while.
As I've posted on other boards, no one is talking about the total lifecycle cost of the two respective aircraft. The Airbus solution was shown to have lower maintenance costs 10, 20, 30 years down the road. This by the way is why all the "patriotic Americans" on this board buy Japanese cars: they cost less to maintain.

“Where is my Spell Checker?”

Since: Nov 07

DFW Metroplex

#124 Mar 9, 2008
The two big factors were superior performance (fewer of the AirBus aircraft were needed to get the job done) and more reliable performance of the suppliers. In this case, it's AirBus's U.S. partner, Northrup, that provided an edge. The air force examined recent project performance by Boeing and AirBus/Northrup, and found that the latter team was more likely to deliver the aircraft on time and at the agreed upon price. Boeing also lost points for providing questionable cost estimates. The air force crunched the numbers of the two proposals and determined that, while 49 of the AirBus tankers would be available by 2013, only 19 of the Boeing version would be ready.

Airbus offered the KC-30, based on the Airbus 330-300, which normally sells for $160 million each. The KC-30 carries 20 percent more fuel than the other candidate, the KC-767, plus more cargo pallets (26 versus 19) and passengers. Thus the KC-30 can stay in the air longer, while transferring more fuel.

The KC-767 is based on the Boeing 767-200 airliner, which sells for about $120 million. The 767 has been in service since 1982, and over 800 have been manufactured so far. Boeing also developed the original KC-135 tanker in the 1950s, and has since built over 2,000 of these.

The two engine KC-30 will officially be known as the KC-45A, and will replace the four engine KC-135. The older aircraft carries 90 tons of fuel and can transfer up to 68 tons. Typically, aerial tankers have to service everything from heavy bombers like B-52s, which carry over 140 tons of jet fuel, to fighters like the F-15 (which carry over five tons of fuel). A two engine KC-767 carries about as much fuel as the KC-135, while the KC-30 carries more. The KC-135 has long made itself useful carrying cargo and passengers, as well as fuel, and both the KC-767 and KC-30 have more capacity for this, with the KC-30 having a decisive edge.

The KC-767 was developed partly because it is about the same size as the KC-135 (wingspan is 156 feet, ten more than the KC-135). Thus the 767 could use the same basing and repair facilities as the 135. That was not a critical factor.

The contract to build 179 KC-45As is worth about $35 billion (about $196 million per aircraft). More than half the work will be done in Europe. The first KC-45s will enter service in five years, rolling out of an assembly plant in the United States. This will give Airbus production facilities in the United States.
groznic

Newmarket, Australia

#125 Mar 10, 2008
here is some of thatest on that as well.

The debate about the impact on American jobs is a murky one, because large manufacturing projects typically involve operations in many parts of the world, regardless of which company has a contract.

If Boeing tries to reverse the decision, it could find itself in a difficult position, accused of further delaying critically needed equipment in a time of war.

Boeing could also be forced to revisit the corruption scandal in 2004 that derailed a $20 billion deal for the company to lease refueling tankers to the Air Force. Two Boeing executives went to jail as a result, and the chief executive stepped down.

Boeing, the heavy favorite to win the contract, having built earlier tankers, promised a new boom but did not build a prototype. One analyst who followed the contest said that Boeing, based in Chicago, seemed arrogant and offered a plan that Air Force officials thought would deliver only 19 tankers by 2013 compared with 49 by the Airbus team.

"The Boeing team was not responsive and often was not even polite," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Virginia, based on conversations he said he had with military officials. "Somehow that all eluded senior management," Thompson said. "They were not even aware there was a problem."

But the hot rhetoric could sound overly nationalistic, and even hypocritical, once the real implications for jobs and national security become clear. Boeing, for example, would have made many of its own tanker parts overseas, and some experts say that claims of job losses to a foreign company seem exaggerated.
Kevin

Las Vegas, NV

#126 Mar 11, 2008
Its simple. The Euro's built a better plane. Boeing is doing everything they can to shove the patriotic crap down our throats through their bought and paid for politicians. Your damn right some politicians are having a fit. Boeing is one of their BIG contributors. Why should we pay more money for an inferior product? All you wannabe patriotic people need to grow up. Boeing is playing you like a puppet. They thought they were a monopoly for the U.S. defenses, because OMG we would never outsource our defense, and now they are running scared because they let their commercial side slide thinking their military side was a sure win.
Lake Moore

Houston, TX

#127 Mar 13, 2008
EADS opened a plant in Mobile several years ago.

The "Tanker" deal was a forgone conclusion, because the process is stacked against the American company, Boeing, in that there is not a level playing field for competition - Boeing is required to furnish and pay for things that EADS-Northrup-Grumman is not required to do.

But these are just acts in a larger play, folks. The larger play ?
America is being gutted, and the center of power is being moved to middle and far East where corporations have no requirements imposed on them for clean ecological operations and workers have no benefits and no rights. How is this being done ? Our own government is killing us, because our own government is owned by big money interests - in short, our government does not represent us anymore. We have been invaded from within, and it is a more devastating attack than if we had been invaded with armed forces.

The question now is this : What do we do about a government that has stolen our governance from us ? That has stolen our Constitution from us ? That has stolen our jobs from us ? That has stolen our borders from us ? That has stolen our elections and representative governance from us ? That has purposely weakened our military, and continues to do so ? That has spent us into oblivion blowing up stuff in Iraq, thus weakening our currency ? What do we do now ?
Lake Moore

Houston, TX

#128 Mar 13, 2008
Kevin wrote:
Its simple. The Euro's built a better plane. Boeing is doing everything they can to shove the patriotic crap down our throats through their bought and paid for politicians. Your damn right some politicians are having a fit. Boeing is one of their BIG contributors. Why should we pay more money for an inferior product? All you wannabe patriotic people need to grow up. Boeing is playing you like a puppet. They thought they were a monopoly for the U.S. defenses, because OMG we would never outsource our defense, and now they are running scared because they let their commercial side slide thinking their military side was a sure win.
Kevin, you strike me as someone who would like to see a baseball game in which one team gets 10 strikes before they are out, and the other team gets one. Why don't you take a look at the stacked deal against Boeing before you spout off uncontrollably ?
beardda2

Canyon Country, CA

#129 Mar 13, 2008
Northrop Grumman won the contract as the prime contratcor. Last I checked that's an american company. EVERY BIG CONTRACT HAS SUB-CONTRACTORS. Wake up.
Dave

Bellflower, CA

#130 Mar 13, 2008
Bulky Nantuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain how this will result in the loss of 40,000 jobs. How can someone lose a job (building 767 tanker aircraft) that never existed in the first place?
The 767 Tanker is already in service...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-767
Dave

UK

#131 Mar 13, 2008
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
The 767 Tanker is already in service...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-767
From the link you provided...

KC-767A Tanker Transport is 767-200ER based and the KC-767 Advanced Tanker offered to the USAF is 767-200LRF based.

The 767-200LRF which is being discussed currently does not exsist as of yet. Or does it? Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm surprised Boeing never offered a passenger version of the 767-200LRF.

“Where is my Spell Checker?”

Since: Nov 07

DFW Metroplex

#132 Mar 14, 2008
A definition of globalization I can understand and to which I can relate.

Question: What is the truest definition of Globalization?

Answer: Princess Diana's death.

Question: How come?

Answer: An English princess with, An Egyptian boyfriend, Crashes in French

Tunnel, driving a German car With a Dutch engine, Driven by a Belgian

Who was drunk On Scottish whisky,

(Check the bottle before you change the spelling),

Followed closely by Italian Paparazzi, On Japanese motorcycles;

Treated by an American doctor, using Brazilian medicines.

This is sent to you by A Canadian, Using Bill Gate's technology,

And you're probably reading this on your computer, that uses Taiwanese Chips, and a Korean monitor, Assembled by Bangladeshi workers In a Singapore plant, Transported by Indian Lorry-drivers, Hijacked by Indonesians, Unloaded by Sicilian Longshoremen, and trucked to you by Mexican illegals...

That, my friends, is Globalization!

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#133 Mar 14, 2008
Dave wrote:
<quoted text>
The 767 Tanker is already in service...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-767
More from the link you provided:

For the KC-X competition, Boeing offered a KC-767 based on the forthcoming 767-200 Long Range Freighter

Note... "Boeing offered". The plane does not exist and no one is working on it. Conversely the NG/EADS plane does exist (plane # 1 is already off the assembly line) and people ARE working on it; or at least they were until the crybabies at Boeing went running to Congress.
u know

United States

#134 Mar 14, 2008
Well a lot of you don't know what you are talking about. 1ST.Boeing Lost the frist contract in 2004,when there top man an 2 top air force personal ended up in prison.So when they rebid the contract,Boeing just took it that they would get it,But the U.S.Air Force Is standing firm, claiming it clearly articulated the tanker program requirements to all parties.The Boeing767-200 aircraft which in military versions for Italy and Japan has been plagued by technical problems.The A330-200.Can off load more fuel more efficiently farther from base.and can carry more payload,and they can get buy with two dozen fewer planens then would be required with the Boeing plane.Because workers in Moblie will also assemble civilian freighters the airbus choice will create more U.S.Jobs then the Boeing tanker. Although the News media initially focused on the tanker decision being a loss for Boeing-which it is- the Air Force has made a win-win-win decision for the troops,the tax payer and the nation.. so the new tanker will be the U.S.KC-45A
groznic

Coomera, Australia

#135 Mar 15, 2008
Bulky Nantuck wrote:
<quoted text>
More from the link you provided:
For the KC-X competition, Boeing offered a KC-767 based on the forthcoming 767-200 Long Range Freighter
Note... "Boeing offered". The plane does not exist and no one is working on it. Conversely the NG/EADS plane does exist (plane # 1 is already off the assembly line) and people ARE working on it; or at least they were until the crybabies at Boeing went running to Congress.
well least that airbus kc30 plane can either go to the raf or saudia arabia if the americans don't want it.i know the first one for our r.a.a.f here in australia is going great in trails in europe.
dingo

United States

#136 Mar 15, 2008
Richard USA wrote:
The two big factors were superior performance (fewer of the AirBus aircraft were needed to get the job done) and more reliable performance of the suppliers. In this case, it's AirBus's U.S. partner, Northrup, that provided an edge. The air force examined recent project performance by Boeing and AirBus/Northrup, and found that the latter team was more likely to deliver the aircraft on time and at the agreed upon price. Boeing also lost points for providing questionable cost estimates. The air force crunched the numbers of the two proposals and determined that, while 49 of the AirBus tankers would be available by 2013, only 19 of the Boeing version would be ready.
Airbus offered the KC-30, based on the Airbus 330-300, which normally sells for $160 million each. The KC-30 carries 20 percent more fuel than the other candidate, the KC-767, plus more cargo pallets (26 versus 19) and passengers. Thus the KC-30 can stay in the air longer, while transferring more fuel.
The KC-767 is based on the Boeing 767-200 airliner, which sells for about $120 million. The 767 has been in service since 1982, and over 800 have been manufactured so far. Boeing also developed the original KC-135 tanker in the 1950s, and has since built over 2,000 of these.
The two engine KC-30 will officially be known as the KC-45A, and will replace the four engine KC-135. The older aircraft carries 90 tons of fuel and can transfer up to 68 tons. Typically, aerial tankers have to service everything from heavy bombers like B-52s, which carry over 140 tons of jet fuel, to fighters like the F-15 (which carry over five tons of fuel). A two engine KC-767 carries about as much fuel as the KC-135, while the KC-30 carries more. The KC-135 has long made itself useful carrying cargo and passengers, as well as fuel, and both the KC-767 and KC-30 have more capacity for this, with the KC-30 having a decisive edge.
The KC-767 was developed partly because it is about the same size as the KC-135 (wingspan is 156 feet, ten more than the KC-135). Thus the 767 could use the same basing and repair facilities as the 135. That was not a critical factor.
The contract to build 179 KC-45As is worth about $35 billion (about $196 million per aircraft). More than half the work will be done in Europe. The first KC-45s will enter service in five years, rolling out of an assembly plant in the United States. This will give Airbus production facilities in the United States.
TheKC-30 To carry 32 cargo pallets,while the KC-767 Maxs out at 19,and th KC-135 at just six.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rick Larsen Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Opponents of voter ID laws see time to fight ru... (Apr '14) Aug '14 Uber-Bro of the U... 61
News U.S. lawmakers to question oil-by-rail safety; ... (Feb '14) Feb '14 Le Jimbo 24
News Federal officials want more oversight of refine... (Jan '14) Jan '14 Cat74 2
News Wash. leaders press for union vote on Boeing offer (Dec '13) Jan '14 mjjcpa 4
News APNewsBreak: US envoy to travel to NKorea (Aug '13) Sep '13 Rabbie Shalomo Je... 3
News FAA approves Boeing Dreamliner battery system d... (Apr '13) Apr '13 fatbacksx 5
News Here's how automatic cuts would hurt Washington (Feb '13) Feb '13 mom from ohio 1
More from around the web